>>3645589>Just invest in some good lighting instead of taking shit grainy photos.I've got a bunch of lights, and I use them where appropriate. However, sometimes good lighting isn't really an option. E.g., this shot:
>>3645379 was taken in an abandoned factory/warehouse where a lot of the beauty of it was the specific way the light was filtering in through broken windows (or the hole in the ceiling, as in that picture). I could've spent 20 minutes setting up light to mimic how the light looked in that shot to the naked eye or... Take a slightly grainy picture, which I think looks fine and which the model thought looked fine and the only people who don't think it's good are people on 4chan whose opinions are worth about as much to me as what comes out of my pet snake when she decides she wasn't really in the mood to eat that dead rat after all.
And
>>3645497 was a very fleeting candid moment in a dark venue during intermission between two acts of a burlesque show. No time to set up lights.
And generally, for the "Shooting shows in poorly lit venues" examples, the performers really don't like it when you spend the whole show blasting them with flash. I've done it, and the results are pretty decent, but it makes all of the performers hate me. On the other hand, taking good pictures that just have a little noise to them but are otherwise fine (and are 99% of the time only viewed in a browser window at low resolution with added Facebook compression anyway) makes them love me. So it's an easy decision to make.
Or here's a shot of a friend of mine getting double-teamed with saki at a hibachi restaurant. The amount of time I had to whip out my camera and get the shot was basically equivalent to his throat capacity for booze. Which, granted, was impressive, but not enough for me to set up a whole off-camera lighting setup, even if I'd happened to bring my lighting gear with me to dinner. Sometimes serious pro lighting just isn't feasible.
